Supreme Court declines to hear Nebraska immigration case

WASHINGTON Mon May 5, 2014 10:00am EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a Nebraska town's ordinance that cracks down on illegal immigration, declining to hear an appeal filed by a civil rights group.

The 2010 ordinance in Fremont, Nebraska, includes a provision that bars landlords from renting to illegal immigrants.

Plaintiffs represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund sued, saying the measure was trumped by federal immigration law.

The high court's decision not to hear the plaintiffs' appeal leaves intact a June 2013 ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that the ordinance does not conflict with federal law.

The rental provision, one of only a handful around the country, requires prospective tenants to obtain an occupancy license. They must declare their immigration status. City police then check with the federal government. If a tenant is found to be an illegal immigrant, the license is revoked.

In March, the Supreme Court declined to take up two similar cases in which lower courts had struck down ordinances in Texas and Pennsylvania.

The ordinances in those cases were slightly different in that they imposed penalties on immigrants, which the Fremont ordinance does not.

The last time the court decided a major immigration case was in 2012 when it partially upheld Arizona's immigration law. The previous year, the court upheld another Arizona law that penalizes businesses for hiring illegal immigrants.

In April 2013, the court signaled a reluctance to get further involved in immigration when it declined to hear an appeal from Alabama seeking to revive a section of the state's immigration law that criminalized the harboring of illegal immigrants.

The case is Keller v. Fremont, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1043.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and W Simon)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
CliftonC wrote:
AMEN!

May 05, 2014 11:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mikentina02 wrote:
One of the biggest problems that i have seen first hand. More towns should adopt the same policy. Imagine 3 or 4 families living in one house with 2 or 3 children each. Theres only property tax supplied based on a single family home. It can’t supply the school systems or public utilities and services with enough revenue to operate and everyone sees their taxes go through the roof. When towns let it slide it becomes a safe haven for illegals and they flock to the area. Then other services like local hospitals, libraries and etc. become flooded with the illegals abusing the system. Lower skill jobs start dissapearing and middle class families move to different town with more work and lower taxes not to mention a better quality of life. It may take a few years but you end up with a slum town relying on neighboring towns to support and supply services.
Our government sucks. Our politicians suck.

May 05, 2014 11:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.